Those Exempt From Prosecution For Marijuana Possession Will Have To Prove It

[+JohnQHempseed]

From staff reports

 

LANSING - The Michigan Court of Appeals (COA) has ruled persons who claim they are exempt from prosecution under Michigan's Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA) are going to have to prove they have qualifying medical conditions or face prosecution.

In two Oakland County cases, after raids by law enforcement produced growing plants and marijuana, a District Court dismissed the cases because the defendant's possessed cards issued by the state after doctors stated they had qualified medical conditions.

 

An Oakland County Circuit Court judge reversed the District Court and the felony marijuana manufacturing case was appealed.

 

The COA agreed but sent the case back for more evidence.

 

"We find that defendants did not establish at the preliminary examination as a matter of law that they had serious or debilitating medical conditions as required by the MMMA," the court wrote in a 2-1 decision.

 

The court looked to a dictionary to define the phrase "serious medical condition," Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1997) defines "serious," as "weighty, important or significant" and "giving cause for apprehension; critical or threatening."

 

"Without knowing the nature of defendants' medical conditions, it is not possible to determine whether they are serious," the court ruled.

 

With regard to the second reason to issue a MMMA card, "debilitating medical condition," the state law said this phrase includes "(a) chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces one or more of the following: severe and chronic pain; severe nausea "

 

The doctors for the first defendant indicated that he suffered merely from "pain" and that the second suffered merely from "nausea."

 

"This evidence was not sufficient to satisfy the definition set forth in (the MMMA) The District Court therefore erred in concluding that defendants satisfied the requirements of the MMMA as a matter of law.

 

Whether each defendant suffered from a serious or debilitating medical condition is yet another matter for further proceedings," the court decided.

 

The decision, which may be appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, may open the door for arrests of individuals with MMMA cards and required they prove in court they are entitled to use the drug.

[Nemosity]

So what the hell is the entire part of the MMA that addresses arrest and prosecution good for now? I can't believe this country has become of circus of legislation from the bench. Clearly a perpendicular thought process which is cutting through and breaking the very intent of the law itself. What total BS. SO... Does that mean that we are now required to pack our entire medical history records in a satchel and keep it with us at all times so we don't go to jail?? My records from one year alone are too heavy for me to lift safely. I am just totally blown away at all of this malarkey.

[Frank R]

I thought having the card was the proof of need, proof of condition.

Now additional documentation requirements are being imposed by COA.

Will the doctor be charged as well for filing an incomplete application?

[old-hobo]

they cant do any of this stuff. It is against patient/doctor privilege. the Dr. has already said that you have proof of the debilitating deasiese. that is all that is required from the Dr. and us......................

[DT61]

Yet another attempt to back door the law.

They are now trying to twist the language, as some on our side of the fence have.

So once it is proven, we should be able to petition to receive cards good for life.

[Kingpinn]

Good for life sounds good to me. My condition isnt going away soon. Been out of work with GM for three and a half years.Lifetime membership sounds good. Be like the Gold Card. If I can prove my disablity to GM and they are paying me workmans comp. I can prove it to these clowns

[jamieuke]

For now, I believe this all means that if one is going to use the AD, the recommending doctor ought not be from a similar specific cannabis clinic, particularly from out of state, as was Bob's. Of course it is moo-poo, and the issue is not closed. However, that is the standing opinion that lower courts will have to look to.